Readers Write In #86: Fedal – An immortal rivalry

Rafael Nadal was one set up and the second set was going on serves. At 4-4, millions of Roger Federer fans across the globe knew where this was heading. A glimmer of hope was all they had. “Let’s watch something else,” my boss, a Federer fan, declared at work. “Federer is putting up a fight,” my colleague uttered a trademark modest response of a Nadal fan. Inside, he was already celebrating.

On clay, Nadal is always ten steps ahead of his opponent. The long rallies can be misleading. Beneath the small portions of exciting tennis, the opponent is like a lamb to the slaughter. He is often clueless about the incoming killer blow.

This year’s French Open semifinal remained on the expected lines as Nadal romped home with a straight-set victory over his long-standing rival Federer. Needless to say, in the King vs Prince title clash, the former came up trumps. Downing Dominic Thiem for his 12th crown, Nadal’s love affair with Roland Garros continued.

Nearly two decades ago, when grass, my favourite surface, was witnessing the end of Pete Sampras – the laid-back conqueror armed with a good mix of elegant and explosive weapons –it was also blessed with the rise of Federer. And the popular Andre Agassi-Pete Sampras rivalry made way of the Federer-Nadal rivalry. Today, it owns the famous name: Fedal.

It’s never just a game when these two champions are on the court. The hilarious reactions on social media reflect the unceasing tension among the fans. “If you felt the earth moving it’s nothing but the collective sigh of relief from millions of Roger Federer fans after he won the set,” is one of my all-time favourite Tweets.

Passion runs through the veins of Fedal fans. Passion, that makes the matches and the players closer to their hearts. With Fedal, even exaggeration is lovable. Sample this from my colleague: “I tell my wife that watching a Nadal-Federer game is a matter of life and death for me. My BP shoots up and I can’t help it.”

I have enjoyed and learnt a lot about Fedal through my best friend. A die-hard Federer fan, it’s the Swiss maestro’s impeccable style and class that amazed my friend. Talking about style, who can forget the 2009 Wimbledon final? Federer graced the Centre Court at the All England Club with a jacket that resembled a British Army uniform over a gold accented waistcoat. The special outfit met a special finish as Federer downed Andy Roddick in a marathon clash to surpass his idol Sampras’ record of 14Grand Slam titles.

During his prime, it was poetry in motion every time the ball kissed Federer’s racquet. But more than his brilliance, it’s his calmness that made the man more lovable. As the fire raged around him, Federer always remained an iceberg.

The invincible nature of Federer’s early days blinded his fans to the rise of Nadal. Despite his successive defeats to Federer in Wimbledon final (2006 & 2007), Nadal was closing in as world’s best player. And he made his biggest statement in the 2008 final. The rain-marred match, considered as one of the bests in tennis history, saw Nadal nail Federer at his fortress.

Even as Federer fans consoled themselves by terming their hero’s slip up as a one-off, the 2009 Australian Open final put an end to all doubts. With Nadal’s triumph, it was clear that not one but two players were dominating men’s tennis. One need not look beyond Federer’s reaction post the defeat to understand this. “It’s hurting inside,” said Federer as he wept uncontrollably holding the runners-up trophy. As my friend was inconsolable that night, I tried to hammer home the point that it doesn’t make Federer less of a champion if he falters in the final.

To his detractors, Nadal is one-dimensional and a player unable to sort out his numerous injury issues. Nadal might be one of the sport’s greatest defensive players. But to win majors, you also require shots of brilliance, which Nadal possesses in abundance.

Like Federer, it’s the person more than the skill that makes Nadal extraordinary. He is just not all power. Even in a hypothetical situation, where Nadal learns about his defeat before the match begins, the left-handed genius will still compete and give it all to change the outcome. Try to snuff his determination and you will end up losing more often than not. Despite your allegiance towards Federer, your dislike towards Nadal gets swallowed up by the audacity at which he performs.

As age caught up with them and as Novak Djokovic grew to be the best on all surfaces, the two legends’ made news for stumbling against unheralded players carrying ridiculous world rankings. But the 2017 Australian Open Fedal final gave a second wind to both the players. The epic final was the start of a great season for them as Federer (Australian Open and Wimbledon) and Nadal (French and US Open) shared the Grand Slams on offer.

Resurgence is the soul of sports. It inspires us inexplicably with positive energy. Following Federer’s brilliant come-from-behind (a recovery from 1-3 down in final set!) win at the Australian Open final, I remember discussing one of my problems with my friend. “If he can win a major after five years, then I even I can do what I aimed to,” I had told him.

Nadal continues to fight. Federer, to suit his ageing body, has incorporated a range of new shots in his game. And the rivalry has aged well. It is marked with maturity and respect. Federer’s nice words to Nadal makes his post-match talks extremely interesting. Nadal has been open about his admiration towards his arch rival. Tennis needs characters (I can imagine John McEnroe fans grinning). But the sport definitely doesn’t mind darlings like these.

The end is nearing. Federer appears like the one to take the exit first. The rivalry never stuck to its script, just like my friend’s life, which was taken away in an accident. With a heavy heart, we joked that he couldn’t work his magic from upstairs when Nadal comfortably beat Federer in the French Open semifinal last month.

Now we watch the matches for him. We read and go back to the previous matches of these two masters like all tennis fans do. We think of telling our children about these two rare specimens. Because there is no end to this rivalry. Fedal is immortal. There is no one winner. It’s always “Game, set and match Rafa and Roger.”

Related

The rivalry has in recent years transcended partisan considerations and both fanbases instead watch in awe as they keep conquering new frontiers. It is unbelievable that there are two active players with more slams than Pete and a third tied with him and all three look good to be active for a couple more years (MAYBE Fed signs off next year). I don’t know where tennis goes to when they are done but for now, we can still bask in the awesomeness of the Big Three.

Federer took an injury time out when Nadal was leading in the final set at the Australian open. He did the same against Wawrinka in the semis. If it had not happened, he might not have won the title. Well, that is a debatable point

It is a classic match up – Beauty and classicism and purity against brutal strength, energy, grit, a never give up attitude and a killer instinct.

It is like Arjuna versus Karna, or Antony versus Othello, or even an Ali versus a Foreman.

We are fortunate that both of them came up in the same era. If the great Nadal had not been there, Federer may have won, 30-35 Grand slams, and surely Nadal would have won at least 25-30 if there had been no Federer…

@ Vivek: lovely post. So glad to see a write-up paying due homage to both these great champions and also referring to the third member of the Big 3. Partisan considerations in fan bases will always be there, but as Fedalovic 🙂 keep showing their awesome class, will and endurance, a celebration of the unsurpassed talents of all 3 is in order.

Jai: Fuck! How did I forget! See, with them winning so many slams, it’s getting hard just to keep track. 😀 I forgot Novak was supposed to get to 16 by winning the French (which didn’t happen of course).

When their rivalry began, Federer was 23 and Nadal was 18. There’s not a single ongoing rivalry between players in their 20s today. That’s how the game has risen and fallen with the big 4. I guess we’ve got to enjoy it while it lasts…

vagabonder : I was discussing this with somebody else earlier today. Well, here’s a stat to much on. From 91 to 96, three players cornered all but two slams on the women’s singles circuit. They were Seles, Graf and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario. The two slams that the trio left over were won by Mary Pierce and Conchita Martinez. It gets even ‘better’ when you focus on the period from AO 91 to AO 94. Only Seles (mostly) and Graf won all slams in this period. Even at the height of the Fedal duopoly, we never saw a period like this. The closest was from RG 05 to USO 07 and the reign was broken by Djokovic with AO 08. And post 96, we saw the most glorious phase of women’s tennis from 99 to 07, when the field had depth unparalleled by what came before or after. What I am saying is this is not new in tennis. The future may not be as bleak as everyone seems to predict. There may be a new set of champions to take over from the Big Three who may not be any of today’s young hopes. In the mid 90s, nobody thought Davenport would be a multi slammer and Clijsters didn’t exactly have greatness written all over when she played Graf at Wimbledon 99. Heck, if you had asked me about Fed in 2001, I wouldn’t have bet on him winning 20 slams and don’t know anyone who would have.

Well, yet another incredible addition to the Fedal collection. At around 5-5 first set, Fed began really hitting his groundies with authority (having coasted on serve till then). And that’s when he seized control of the match. What the match made clear was in spite of Nadal’s incredible fight in the end, the match up issues he had with Fed in 2017 haven’t gone away (off clay). Nadal made it harder than it would have been had we picked it up from Shanghai 17 by improving his serve and thus making it harder for Fed to break up. But Fed still broke anyway. Fed was very clutch apart from a botched overhead while serving for the match. Numerous tight points that he would have fluffed before against his great rival, he won yesterday by thinking clearly and executing immaculately. A measure of this is the fact that Nadal really crushed that inside out forehand whenever given the chance. But Fed wouldn’t let him. He learnt well from the Djokodal match at AO this year and bottled him up, pinning him to his backhand and thereby controlling the rallies. Great, great win for Fed but another ordeal now awaits in the final against the Serbinator.

@ Madan, yesterday’s match was engrossing ofc , given the stature of the gladiators and the stage at which the battle took place. But for sheer quality of play….till set 4 (and parts of set 3), it was fairly underwhelming. Not really one of the ultimate Fedal classics (quality of play wise). I will admit to some disappointment on that score….and truly, that’s not because of the result alone 😆 though obviously I was rooting for Rafa.

Jai : On the other hand, I thought the standard of the match was pretty high. The high winners to UEs ratio for both players points to this. It’s actually how efficient their game has become that has reduced the scope for drama. They are both serving well and winning lots of free points so there is less need to rally each other to death. Fed was also great at the net where he used to fluff volleys against Nadal before.

Rahul: I think so as well. But let’s see. Fed sprang a surprise on everyone at AO 17, a final Nadal was expected in win in a maximum of four sets. I am loving this Ljuberer phase; this is the most cerebral and tactical I have ever seen Fed play. He is playing with a gameplan rather than hoping to wing his way with his sheer strokemaking talent and that’s what makes him so dangerous now. IF Ljubicic and Luthi have given him a winning gameplan against Djokovic, this could be very interesting. Else, of course, Djokovic will routine him, as tennis fans say.

Federer is a keen student of the game and a great strategist. He has reinvented his game constantly, especially majorly after 2014. He changed his racket, he started hitting harder (which is less pleasing though), hits through the backhand now, has started serve and volleying better and better, become almost a becker at the net, and now plants himself well inside the baseline and sends the ball back almost instantly.

The only weakness at the beginning of the year was his unwillingness to stand long baseline rallies and the propensity to lose them.

He has been working on that aspect this whole year. Even in the crunch match against Tsitsipas in the australian open, he refused to come to the net and win points – I suspect it was because he wanted to improve his baseline game. Also, he participated in the clay court season seriously. That too has improved his baseline game considerably.

It showed in his semifinal against Nadal – he won most of the baseline rallies, which was one thing that flummoxed Nadal.

It is very difficult to predict these things, small things may push things either way. But, The great Fed has been planning this for a long time. I will be very surprised if he loses today.

I think it’s going to be Novak in 4. But let’s see. Feb played very well against Rafa, especially sets 3 and 4, but at this stage of their careers, playing Rafa on grass is different from playing Novak.

Whatever happens, I hope the crowd doesn’t behave as boorishly as the USO crowd in 2015. Wimbledon crowds have been, on the whole, more civilized; but with this arguably being one of Fed’s last chances to get another title here, the temptation for a (hopefully) limited section of the crowd to get into the match and try to rile Novak out of his zone, must be rather intense.

Robustly cheering on one’s favorite is fine, but I think it detracts from the pure spectacle of the game when the crowd goes beyond a certain limit. Hope that doesn’t happen today. And if it does….well, Novak has a history of spurring himself on, feeding on his anger at a partisan crowd egging on his opponent. 🙂 So let’s see.

Djocovic has never been a crowd favourite. It is just not Federer or Nadal he is facing. I suppose he just lacks charisma. Pity as he is supposed to be a complete player according to the experts. 99% of the crowd will be for Federer. As you rightly said, it will egg Djo on. Nadal was not at his best in the semis. Can look forward to an absorbing finals

@ Lakshmi, am typing this quickly intermittently between breaks in the match😃

I agree that Novak isn’t as popular as Fed or Rafa but i don’t think it’s because he lacks charisma by any means. There was a discussion on this on some previous thread here as well some years back.

I think by the time he came in and started winning, most people had already gravitated as either Fed fans or Rafa fans. And these 2 are supremely talented and gifted players. When Novak started beating them, it naturally turned a significant section of the fans into ….well, if not haters, at least as people who didn’t care for Novak much.

Plus, his game isn’t as aesthetically pleasing as Federer’s or as flamboyant as Nadal’s. But he has a fantastic ability to blend and shift from defense to offense, has endurance far beyond what his fairly lanky frame would suggest, and has amazing court coverage to get ball after ball back. He is amazingly gifted as well, in his own way.

Paradoxically, had he been less successful against Fed and Rafa, he might have been more popular 😁 because then people wouldn’t have had that angst against him. Take Delpo for example. Genial guy, gifted player, sense of humor. All things one would definitely say for Novak as well. But Delpo doesn’t inspire the same rancour some people bear (wrongly) towards Novak, because Delpo hasn’t been beating Fed or Rafa that much.

And to a certain degree, there is an undercurrent of anti Serb bias in media coverage of him which has also affected perceptions. I remember a blatant article in i think the Telegraph or Daily Mail some years ago, which likened Novak’s aggression on court, to Serbian hyper nationalism. That was in very, very poor taste.

And what a match….that’s the 3rd time in a GS match that Novak has erased 2 Federer match points and come roaring back to win. 2010 and 2011 USO semis and now here at 2019 Wimbledon finals.

In terms of sheer mental toughness and resilience, i think there’s a case to be made for Novak now slightly edging out the other 2 greats. Would have to research to make sure, but I’m not sure if either of Fedal have managed to pull this feat off in a GS semi/final…and AFAIK, certainly not against another member of the Big 3.

Rahul/Jai: Yeah, just for the courage Fed showed in making a match that Novak controlled so tough, I didn’t mind those fluffed match points. And truth be told, that was a great passing shot at 40-30 from Novak (in a match where he otherwise didn’t pass so well and frequently watched Fed produce delectable volleys). Full credit for him. For people to say Fed choked would imply Novak didn’t deserve to win and that’s a poor inference. For had he not let his level drop in sets 2 and 4, Fed had no way past him anyway. Fed struggled to penetrate Novak’s serve and Novak controlled the rallies as expected. Fed just kept the serving at such a high level that Novak couldn’t break him until the fifth set either. Lion hearted effort from both but as Fed has said of the AO 2017 final, there has to be a winner in tennis and so it was Novak.

Jai – Good comprehensive comment. You perfectly summarized the anti Novak feeling amongst fans and the western media outlets. There have been multiple articles off late in wide ranging outlets from ESPN to BBC to even WSJ about this phenomenon against Novak.

In addition to all the great points you make, there is this factoid about Novak turning down UK citizenship to train and represent England when he was 16, which he turned down and instead went to Germany I believe to train.

Apart from the Fedal beatings he has handed over the years, he has dominated the main Brit hope Murray beating him in multiple slam finals.
Finally, there is also the brat/petulant aspect of him in his younger days which got stuck in people’s minds (which was the same period when he was on the ascendancy and challenging fedal albeit not yet beating them consistently). This ties into the tennis fandom dividing into 2 and here comes the impudent upstart who dares challenge the world order! While he has matured since and strives to be an elder statesman, the petulance comes across from time to time – whiny, emotional outbursts which I think is who he is. I think he almost needs that as a tonic to fight back when he is down.

I think all these turn people against him. Today, I was so disgusted at what I saw at Wimbledon. I literally watched the match on mute. I am glad by winning (albeit by being second best as I thought Federer played much better) he shut the hooligans up for good. This is something Madan and I were discussing on a thread recently.

It is a testament to his mental fortitude and tenacity that despite not being at his best (return game was not on and was not hitting the ball cleanly) and fighting himself, fighting a magnificent charge from the great federer and a hyper partisan crowd, he hung in there, played the big points well and won!

Yes, he may never be as loved as Fedal but he does have the charisma and he has a legion of fans worldwide including one in me from 2014. I ignored him at first, but warmed to him and now root for him. Lastly, imho he is a couple of shades below Federer and a shade above Nadal in the pantheon of all time greats based on performance to date.

The reason I have Novak above Nadal are: The Novak slam, 2011 and 2015 seasons of complete dominance, better H2H against both Fedal, being one of 2 men to beat Nadal at FO, only one to win all 9 Masters 1000 titles. In addition, he has 70 weeks more than Rafa as #1, has won the year end ATP masters 5 teams (fed has 6). I think Nadal barring his injuries could have done all of several of the above but as things stand Novak is #2 all greatest in my book and closing in on federer.

@ Pirhaskar: Well said. And I must say I agree in your evaluation of the relative placements of the Big 3 (for now, let’s see how they change by the time they each finally hang up their rackets—may that day be a long, long, long time away!).

Despite being a very keen Rafa fan, I must admit his resume (as it stands now), trails the other two. Fed will always get a bonus for being the most aesthetically pleasing, artistic player who can conjure up shots (even now!) which no one else can. Plus, his late career renaissance and dominating H2H since 2017 against Rafa, will definitely count as his strong point in comparisons between Fed and Rafa for the title of GOAT.

But in terms of sheer guts and grit and bloody minded determination, I feel Fed comes a bit short as compared to both Rafa as well as Novak. As well, he trails them in Masters 1000 titles. Besides, for all their years of sustained excellence and dominance, neither Rafa nor Fed managed to hold all 4 GS titles at the same time– which feat Novak achieved.

So it all finally boils down to what metric one chooses to give more weightage to. Let’s see where the final GS tallies land up– on present form, it does seem that Novak will surpass Fed sooner rather than later, and even Rafa might conceivably tie with Fed. But that’s how it seemed in 2015-2016 as well, so some things can’t be forecasted!

There is one common denominator in all their resumes though- the number of slams they have each won on their ‘least accomplished’ slam – for want of a better term. All the 3 greats have one slam where they have ‘only’ won a single title – Fed and Novak have won one each at the French; Rafa has won one at the Australian Open.

My personal feeling is, by the time they hang up their boots, if one of them has managed to up their score in that respective slam where they have ‘only’ one as of now– well, that Champ will have an edge in that metric in the GOAT stakes. As the member of the Big 3 who managed to win at least 2 titles in each GS, I mean.

Personally, I feel that Novak has the best chance (as it stands now) of achieving this. I see more chances of Novak winning one more French open, than Rafa winning another AO or Fed winning the French. But then, this is all part of the delightful hypotheticals surrounding 3 of the greatest champions to have graced the game. So may their matchups continue for as many more years as humanly (or in their case superhumanly!) possible!

Wrt my comment above, in the last para, I meant to say that I see more chances of Novak winning at least one more French open, than Rafa winning another AO or Fed winning the French. Besides, Novak would be the favourite for the next few hard court slams, both USO & Australian. Forecasts are potentially injurious to health (of the forecaster!) though, where these 3 greats are concerned. So let’s see. 😀

Although the article here and the tennis world aches for a Fedal rivalry, I actually think there was not much of a rivalry there – atleast not until 2017 when Fed found a second wind and finally figured out how to play Rafa. The greatest rivalry in tennis imho – pound for pound, shot for shot is the Rafa-Novak rivalry. The Fedal rivalry is a romanticized 00’s phenomenon driven mostly by the 07-08 Wimbledon finals. That and the fact that both players have contrasting styles and challenged each other consistently in the 00’s for major championships. When Novak one his first slam in 2008, Federer had 13 and rafa 6…roughly that is about the same time Rafa’s peak started. I have also noticed it is the Federer fanboys who shortchange Novak the most….but for Novak consistently beating Rafa in his peak years between 2008-2012 (in 4 slam finals I think) Rafa would have long won the GOAT title, considering his h2h with Federer.

Long story short, I think Novak will and should always be part of the conversation objectively speaking. It is not Fedal but Fedalovic!

It is such a pity that Djokovic does not get
the credit that he rightfully deserves. Some
English newspaper had said “Djokovich
might have won the match, but not the
hearts”. I felt so sad when Djo said that
whenever he heard the crowd yelling Roger
he heard it as Novak. How painful it must
have been for him. Why can’t we give him credid. Not the first time Fed lost after having
match points. It can happen to anyone.
Losing after match points is nothing
Compared to what happened to New Zealand
It is just “Que sera sera”

While the Wimbledon crowd was not as nasty and boorish as the USO 2015 crowd, they did still heckle and whistle at Novak on a couple of occasions, and — in very poor taste– did applaud his double faults. He is now a 5 time champ at Wimbledon. Any lack of respect and decorum shown towards him, reflects on the lack of understanding, maturity and perspective of the crowd itself, and does not reflect any lack on the part of Djokovic.

As things stand (while it is very difficult to predict with absolute certainty for the future), Novak looks very much capable of adding at least a couple more Wimbledons (not to mention additional titles in the other slams) to his haul. In fact he could very well match Fed in number of Wimbledon crowns, who knows.

Despite being more of a Rafa fan, I am very clear that Novak needs to be given his due; he has earned his place (and more) at the high table. Crowds at Wimbledon and the USO need to take a long, hard look at themselves in the mirror. They would not like what they see, if they have any real perspective.

Some very well written articles on the dramatic DjokoFed match. I would heartily recommend Steve Tignor, he writes with such passion for the game and is extremely even and fair with his observations. One of the very best sports journalists out there.

Some extracts from this article which really capture the essence of Novak’s strength of mind:

“” But when it counted most, Djokovic was impenetrable…………….

Five-time champion that he is, Djokovic did: Hitting through his nerves, his opponent, and the crowd, he came up with two of the biggest winners of his career—first a forehand and then a sizzling down-the-line backhand—to reach championship point…….

Djokovic showed why he was the best men’s player of the last 10 years—with his game, yes, but even more so with his resilience. The fact that he showed his nerves in this match only made his ability to hit through them more impressive.”””

Nice extract in the slate.com article which tied in with our previous discussion on this thread as to why Novak is respected but not beloved. (thus far, for the majority of fans at least).

“”Djokovic has never been and will never be adored the way Federer and Nadal (but especially Federer) are adored. He was the third man butting his way into a two-man rivalry, and he’s always been more a foil than a hero (at least outside of Serbia). But in the biggest moments, on the sport’s biggest stages, Djokovic is almost always at his best. If he isn’t the greatest player of all time, he’s certainly the greatest at summoning greatness.””

and here, from the guardian article: “With this victory Djokovic extends his lead over Federer to 26-22. For good measure he has also now beaten him in three of their four matches on grass. And once again he did so almost alone, except for those inside his player’s box and a pocket of Serbian fans cheering him on. Not for the first time he proved impervious – and imperious.””

@ pirhaksar: “The greatest rivalry in tennis imho – pound for pound, shot for shot is the Rafa-Novak rivalry” Well, I do agree with you here, but I still feel the Fedal rivalry is special in its own way. I loved watching the 2012 AO final, the 2013 French Open Semi and the 2018 Wimbledon Semi between Djokodal 🙂 , but I would still give the teeniest edge to the Fedal 2008 Wimbledon final as the Greatest tennis match I’ve seen. And of course the Fedal 2009 AO final and 2017 Wimbledon finals were nice to watch as well; only a tad below the aforementioned Djokodal clashes (or maybe at par). BTW the DjokoFed 2014 Wimbledon final was an awesome one too, as well as their clashes at the USO semis in 2010 and 2011.

I think the contrast in styles of play in Fedal matchups makes for some very electric exchanges. They do have the most distinct contrast of styles among the Big 3 matchups. But yes, like you’ve said, pound for pound in terms of sheer intensity of play, Rafa–Novak matches do come up trumps (on most occasions, not all). I think the hallmark of their rivalry is their unparalleled athleticism and their gritty, never say die mental fortitude. Rafa-Novak produce visceral tennis, push each other to the very limits physically. And their similar ability to retrieve almost every single ball and turn defence into offence makes for some great theatre, with several pulsating & tense rallies.

I disagree with the contention that Fed or his fans have something to be grateful for to Djokovic for stopping Nadal. This is a canard many Fed fans bought into and buy into but it is not supported by facts. This theory took root in 2011 when Djokovic did stop Nadal at Wimbledon and USO. We can add to this AO 2012 and Wimbledon 2018. That’s it. In the meantime, Djokovic beat Federer in four slam finals and also a SF (AO 2016). Four versus five. And he has also not been able to stop Nadal at RG anyway.

In 2011, nobody foresaw Nadal’s overall level – and not just against Djokovic – dropping so sharply as it has. After 2010, he won just two slams on HC and none on grass. Nobody also thought Fed would turn things around and start making slam finals again after the low of 2013. And who stopped him from cashing in when Nadal hit his nadir in 2015-16? Djokovic.

Djokovic in fact is the true successor to Fed’s mantle in terms of success on grass and HC. He is already more successful at AO and not far behind at USO or Wimbledon either. He has also won the World Tour Finals several times like Fed and unlike Nadal who has NEVER won it. Nadal is fundamentally a clay court player who adapted brilliantly to other surfaces. But there is a reason he has never defended a title off clay to date. And he is now getting into long periods where he isn’t winning titles per se of clay. Djokovic has all bases covered. But I am less optimistic about his clay prospects than Jai. Initially he used to pose problems to Thiem on clay but Thiem seems to have sorted him out. Which to me suggests his level has dropped a bit on clay. For Nadal too, Thiem could pose a major threat next year. He was able to drag him into a fourth set in spite of having played the semi over two days and thus bring deprived of a break.

@ Madan: I agree that Thiem is certainly going to be a thorn in the side of both Rafa & Novak on clay. But I do feel that both of these greats still have very good chances at Roland Garros for the near/medium term. Nadal might win one more, I sure wouldn’t want to bet against him. And Novak—well, nothing is certain. But I wouldn’t be surprised at all if, by the time he decides to call it a day on his career, he has managed to win at least one more French Open. Thiem, for all his undoubted skills on clay, isn’t exactly the paragon of consistency (yet). Who knows, Thiem might lose a semi to a Tsitsipas, say, in a humdinger.

The only issue I have with Djokovic (as other people do) is that he is not Federer. He is the ultimate Nick Bolletieri player who does all the shots well, and can do it ad nauseam.

Federer showed us how beautiful tennis can be – after that it will be difficult for fans (either the true connosieur, or a novice like me) to go back to the banal ones.

Take the semifinal between Djokovic and Agut for instance. You could take a bathroom break, consort with your partner, have a slight nap and come back refreshed – and the rally would still be on – tick, tock,tick tock…..

Do we really want that kind of wimbledon champion?

I hope the Dimitrovs and Tsitsipas and Kyrgios of the world meet with some success. Otherwise, we would have to keep on watching replays, like some people watch old movies all day long…

Pradeep CK: But Djokovic produced beautiful underspin drop slices against Federer. Almost Federer like, if I may. He also volleyed a lot and volleyed very well at that against Thiem at RG. I don’t think the Agut match is a reflection of how he always plays. He was off that day and therefore timid in his shot selection. Last year’s Nadalovic semi also saw spectacular shotmaking from both players.

@ Pradeep CK: C’mon man, Novak is nowhere close to that boring level of play as you describe. 🙂 I think you are still fresh off the disappointment of the result and hence you’re saying this. True, Novak does not have Federer’s exquisite touch, but to call, say, a Djokodal match boring, is very unfair, not to mention untrue. There is a beauty to Novak’s game too, as there is in Nadal’s, as there is in say, Delpo’s on a day when he’s on song, or Wawrinka when he is crunching that haymaker of a backhand. Not everyone can—or needs to—play like Federer in order to be considered great.

Of the future lot– Tsitsipas, Thiem and Zverev all look as if they could come up and deliver, not in the immediate/ short term perhaps, but over a medium term horizon. My personal feeling is that Tsitsipas and Thiem might both outperform Zverev who seems a bit spaced out and not gritty enough (as of now) to win 7 X 5 set matches at the slams.

As regards Kyrgios —am not a fan. Emphatically, not a fan at all of his thorough and complete obnoxiousness. He has raw talent, no denying that. But he is just so unlikable a person and so profligate with his skills that unless he gets himself sorted and does his quality of match play do the talking, instead of ceaselessly trash talking ad nauseam, it seems unlikely he will ever break through at the slams. But then, one never quite knows.

Compared to Fedal matches, Djokodal matches ARE boring. Wimby 18 was that rare exciting match with some good shotmaking, mostly because of how the game played out. The AO 12 match was looong but it was more of a grindfest. Even the Fedovic match yesterday was passive, neither player in flow. I don’t think this match will be remembered for the quality. Wimby 08 OTOH is still an amazing match to watch.

As for Djoker not being liked – ain’t nothing you can do about that. Crowd was a bit obnoxious though.

@jai, you are right – it was a terrible terrible day. It is like a death in the family. It will take time to pick myself up and move on – someone should do a study on sick Federer fans like me. Why this happens, effects on productivity, economy etc.

I love Kyrgios. After McEnroe, I am seeing an enfant terrible for the first time. Otherwise, it was becoming too nice and gooey gooey. ‘ Federer is a great champ, it was not his day etc’.

We need more bad guys. Of course, if only his verbal put downs had half as much class as his at-the-net put downs….

@therag: well, Rafa– Novak matchups may not have the same contrast in styles as Fedal matches but they’re far from boring. Yes, their AO final in 2012 was long, but to label it as just a boring slugfest would not be a just assessment. There were a number of lung busting rallies, both players running all over the court till well into the 5th set. It demanded a lot of intense physicality, quite some technical proficiency and an amazing amount of guts from both players.

The standard of shot making was superb not just in their Wimbledon semi last year, but even so far back as their 2009 madrid open semi. Their French open semi in 2013 was very gripping as well.

But yes, Fedal Wimbledon 2008 was a special match. As was their Australian in 2009. Am just saying, one can appreciate other matchups as well. It’s not a simplistic binary of Fedal=fascinating while everyone else =boring.

“Even the Fedovic match yesterday was passive, neither player in flow. I don’t think this match will be remembered for the quality. Wimby 08 OTOH is still an amazing match to watch.” – I disagree. In terms of volleying, esp from Fed, the standard of this match was higher than Wimbledon 08. Back then, Fed was still hitting volleys too deep too often and letting himself get passed. On Sunday, he was absolutely knifing it. Won something like 80% or more points at net and he came in a lot, including S&V on second serve. As for the baseline rallies, remember this year Wimbledon was pretty low bouncing so it was not conducive to heavy hitting at all. Nadal still tried to rally and Fed took full advantage by hitting fast, low and flat forehands. Djokovic expected this and kept changing the pace and spin of balls a lot. Fed in turn did the same to him. I get that the results are not pretty to watch on the TV screen but what they did is actually very difficult to execute. No wonder Nole called it the most mentally exhausting match he had ever played. Fed likely thought so as well.

@Jai, lung-busting rallies requiring intense physicality, guts == slugfest. I didn’t say the players gave up or that they didn’t turn up. The match was not low quality.

@Madan, Well Fed has changed his game a lot and the serve and volleying was pretty good. Both players were playing very tactically which, I think, was the problem. I will still claim that both players were a bit uneasy on the field, waiting for the error. Again, not a low quality game but not a very high quality game either, and most definitely not a classic IMHO.

@ therag, OK, call the Rafa–Novak AO 2012 final a slugfest if you wish. 😊 You said in your first comment that the match was boring, which I pointed out that it wasn’t. You now agree that the match was not low quality, which is what I was saying anyway.

” I will still claim that both players were a bit uneasy on the field, waiting for the error. Again, not a low quality game but not a very high quality game either” – I don’t think that is uneasiness, and more likely just an outcome of the two having played each other so often. As Fed had said before the match, there’s nothing the two don’t know about each other’s style. When that is the case, they will tend to play around each other rather than at each other and bait the other to make the error. But by objective measures, this was a very high quality match. Fed made 94 winners, much more than his 72 at the AO 2017 final or, wait for it, Wimbledon 2008 (88). And he made 80 UFEs at W 2008 vis a vis only 62 on Sunday. He played a very clean match though it looked ugly on the screen. That is why he was able to push Djokovic all the way; wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Made 25 aces, 5 more than at AO as well.

“lung-busting rallies requiring intense physicality, guts == slugfest. ” – And yet, Novak won 18 points at net while Rafa won 16. Not a high number but not very low either. Also, Nadal used the BH slice a whopping 128 times in the match. I get why it LOOKS like a slugfest but really, any Big 4 match up brings out the full repertoire of shots in the game.

@ Madan – Always a pleasure to read your comments, especially those on tennis, the sport that I love the most. If I could make a guess, you play tennis as well, apart from obviously following the sport? The way you analyse matches certainly suggests so.

Nicely analysed as regards the Rafovak AO 2012 final. The statistics of net play, backhand shots etc, which you have mentioned, ought to make it pretty evident this match did, in fact, feature a wide repertoire of courageous shotmaking. While this match did not equal the 2008 Fedal Wimbledon final in virtuosity, it certainly wasn’t boring. And neither did it lack shotmaking or technical proficiency, there were breathtaking shots interspersed through those rallies as you have talked about.

Fascinating to read your analysis about the recent DjokoFed Wimbledon final, too. While it would (to my mind), not match the Fedal 2008 classic nor the Djoko-Fed final of 2014 (and I personally rate the Rafovak 2018 semi higher as well), it certainly was a very dramatic match. There’s an analysis on tennis.com which actually ranks it as the 3rd best men’s final ever at Wimbledon (after the 2008 and 1980 finals), and in the top 10 of ATP matches ever. I’m not quite certain that rank is accurate, but what the heck, these “rankings” of matches are subjective anyway.

Jai: Yes, I do play tennis. Been ‘following’ the game since around 94 or so (I mean, I was just 9 then) and started playing in 2014. By recreational standards, I am maybe a half decent player. Compared to these giants, I don’t even know the ABCD of tennis yet. 🙂

BR: Thanks, it was a good article. I agree with a lot of it. But I have to point out one error and also have one difference of opinion.

The error is when the author says Nadal has tied Fed at US Open. No, he hasn’t. He has four US Opens while Fed has five. Also, Fed has five US Opens in a row which Nadal doesn’t nor does Djokovic. In fact, Fed has five in a row at two slams and neither Nadal not Djokovic can boast of that.

Now, the difference of opinion. I don’t agree with hyphenating all three non clay slams as if they are one surface. If you are saying Nadal is stronger at his weakest ‘surface’ than Federer or Djokovic at theirs, you are also conceding Nadal is weaker on more surfaces than the other two. Much more dominant at his strongest slam but weaker at the other three. Instead of coming two in fact three slams, if we looked at weakest SLAM, there is no difference at all because Nadal too has one Australian Open (like one French Open for Fed and Djokovic). The fact that there are two hard court slams as opposed to only one clay or grass slam gives more opportunities to Nadal to make amends at hard court. The more pertinent point is all hard courts don’t play alike. The only thing all hard courts in the world have in common is predictable bounce. But some are low and slow, some are low and fast, some are high bouncing and fast, some are high and slow. It’s a huge spectrum. So clubbing US Open and Australian Open together makes no sense. The distinction is illusory. What IS Nadal’s greatest distinction is he has as many RGs as the number of slams Borg won. The only player with double digit titles at a single slam. That is distinction enough. At 19 slams, many will already be hailing him as the GOAT and if he equalises with Fed, the coronation is almost certain. Of course, Fed is not done yet but he badly needs the next generation to step up to stop his bete noires from passing him. 😀 Medvedev’s fight would have gladdened his heart.

Yes, Medvedev’s win would gave made Federer happy. Two points I want to make. I personally believe that Nadal would have won the Australian open if Federer had not taken time out at a very crucial point when Nadal was leading. IF Federer , Nadal and Djocovic had come on the scene at the same time, would Federer have won so many slams. Most of them came in 5 years before the other two came on the scene.

I am relatively new to Tennis compared to the commentators here, but I’ve always had this feeling. Nadal is more of Cristiano Ronaldo while Federer is more of a Messi.

I am a fan of Ronaldo AND Federer and that’s something I am always conflicted about. I somehow also think inspite of injuries, Nadal is more athletic than both Djokovic and Fed like how Ronaldo is more athletic than any other footballer. I also think Nadal has more stamina which allows him to grind for points on a clay court with uneven bounce and tire the opponent into making errors. And him being a lefty compounds the advantage.

It is sad to see Fed losing from winning positions though. But at 38, he is still getting into winning positions and that’s remarkable.

” I personally believe that Nadal would have won the Australian open if Federer had not taken time out at a very crucial point when Nadal was leading.” – You are wrong there. The time out was between sets and the score was 2 sets all. So, no, Nadal was NOT leading when Fed took the time out. In fact, when Fed came back, he lost his first service game and immediately conceded the advantage to Nadal. That set was Nadal’s to win but Fed somehow fought back and broke him twice.

“IF Federer , Nadal and Djocovic had come on the scene at the same time, would Federer have won so many slams.”- The same age difference also means he’s 38 to Novak’s 32 and he was one big serve away from beating Novak at Wimbledon this year. If a much older Fed could still beat or nearly beat either of the two at the slams, why would it be such an outlandish idea that he could beat them if they were all of the same age? Wouldn’t that give Fed the opportunity to play them when he was younger too?

“Most of them came in 5 years before the other two came on the scene.” – Nadal was on the scene from 2005 itself. And Djokovic from at least USO 2007. Nevertheless, I know this argument and even if we split his career into pre-2008 and 2008 onwards, Fed had 12 slams between 2003-2007 and 8 from 2008 onwards. His slam tally from 2008 onwards is 40% of his total. So, no, he definitely didn’t win most of his slams before Nadalovic came on the scene. That’s a myth. I honestly feel like some Nadalovic fans simply stopped counting Fed’s slams after he lost Wimbledon 2008. But he kept accumulating slams even after that win. This is not the 1980s and nobody ran away from one lost final bout like Borg. These three will fight it out till the bitter end, until they are cripples. And then, they might go over to the wheelchair tour and terrorise it. They probably love tennis madly enough to do something that crazy.

@lakshmi, it may not be so simple (that fed would have won less slams if Nadal and Djokovic played at the same time).

This is a common assumption which happens we people go by numbers only.

I have seen almost all of Federer’s grand slam matches since the 2003 Wimbledon finals when he defeated Roddick and subsequently Philippousis for the title. I fell in love with his game because it was so different from the other guys were playing it.

Those days Nadal and Later Djokovic tried to avoid playing Federer (unless on clay). Federer’s economy of motion and point construction (where the opponent had to run twice as much) made it difficult for others to stay with him, at that time it was impossible.

It is commendable that Djokovic and Nadal improved their fitness and endurance to such a level that they could keep up an insanely high level of exertion for up to 5 hours (the 2009 australian open being the first instance).

It is partly thanks to their will power and desire to win, partly due to the wonders of modern diet and exercise technology. Why has Nadal turned almost bald? Why does Djokovic go off and on healthwise ever since Meldonium was banned?

I digress.

The point I wanted to make is that these are not static games and algorithms to be compared, they are all champions and great thinkers of the game. Nadal and Djokovic evolved their game as a response to Federer’s. When they became better, Federer in turn evolved his (he has beaten Nadal 5 times out of six latest count).

If they had matured earlier, Federer would have been prompted to change his game earlier, and what a monster that would have created. Instead, people like his great coach Tony Roche said – there is very little to improve, and he stayed put

“Racquet technology also has a lot to do with the way players play” – Very much so. Although currently, the big three are not far apart anymore in the racquets they use. Nadal uses the old Babolat Aeropro Drive which was more plush than the one sold in retail and it has a 100 sq inch head. Djokovic’s would be 95 and plush. Fed’s is 97 and plush. Earlier, Fed used a 90 sq inch racquet which gave him a lot of precision at some cost in terms of control as well as power. Could he have flipped the script by moving earlier to a 97 sq inch? Maybe but it takes a long time to adjust to a different racquet, so he would have lost time anyway. Back in the mid noughties when Nadal was beating him regularly at RG, Nadal was the outlier while Hewitt and Safin played with smaller heads like Fed.

Pradeep: Ha, I picked up the appropriate racquet performance terminology by hanging around on Talk Tennis, reading the Tennis Warehouse reviews. I have not played with either of those racquets (and wow, you played with the RF, it’s a pretty heavy racquet going by the specs) but I do have a Yonex Tour G 310. It’s a sheer beauty; you won’t feel any vibrations/rattling even off totally framed hits. I used to have a Duel G Alpha (before the tip broke 😦 ) and while not as plush, it still played way softer than the Aeropro Drive which has an identical stiffness rating. I have heard that the reason for this is that the insides of the frame, particularly the handle, of Yonex racquets are filled with foam which softens the impact. The throat is also very flex. On well struck hits off the middle, you can almost feel the strings moving back to form a sort of bed for the ball. I used to have the Pure Drive ( a 2012 make) before and that thing just sent shocks up my arm straight up. A plus point of that is it made me concentrate better and force myself to hit the sweetspot every time because anything off the sweet spot was painful. But I gave up after a few months.

I could not play with the RF 97, I think it needs an expert. But the Ezone DR 98 is pure magic, just like your Yonex Tour one.

I love collecting rackets. There is a “used rackets” section in tennishub.in, where people dispose rackets like Ezone and RF 97 for a pittance like 2k or 3k. So checking this is a daily morning ritual 🙂

Pradeep CK: I don’t collect much racquets as it would burn a hole in my pocket. I like to play with different ones whenever I get a chance, though. The sweetest one I laid hands on was an old Head LM Radical. They just don’t make them like that anymore. I would love to play with either of the following: Wilson PS85, Dunlop Max200G and Head Prestige.

@Madan, I have a Liquid Metal coincidentally, a dream one truly. It is this racket which made me continue tennis – the earlier Prince and Wilson ones which I had convinced me that I could never whack a ball properly.

But later, I found it too powerful. Probably because it is head heavy? Heavy shots were going out of the court, which is why I shifted to the Ezone DR – she plays well

Pradeep CK: I am guessing those Prince and Wilson racquets were way headlight? That combined with a relatively low stiffness rating (Prince can be ridiculously low) leads to less power and you have to swing as fast as you possibly can to generate power. LM is even balance so must have been too much of a contrast. I personally like racquets that aren’t too headlight while also having a soft response. Not too powerful but not so low-powered that generating any power becomes a problem.